In post‐war Germany and South Korea, not only was vocational education and training key to the two countries' export‐oriented growth models, it also promoted social inclusion. More recently, the knowledge economy has put this skills‐based, inclusive growth model under pressure, and we see labour market dualisation calling into question the social contracts in the two countries. Studying education reform in Germany and Korea, we analyse government capacity to reconcile efficiency and inclusion in the knowledge economy, in the context of twin pressures from firms (with changing skills needs) and parents (with high aspirations for their children). We show that the German government, drawing on its corporatist past, has been more successful in mediating these pressures than Korea, where hierarchical business relations undermined employer engagement and more inclusive policies.
This article examines variation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) expansion in four ‘latecomer’ reformers: Germany, England, South Korea and Japan. Taking a comparative approach through an analysis of policy documents, it focuses on the role of ideas as coalition magnets in explaining the more extensive and sustained policy shifts in Germany and Korea, in contrast to the more limited and fragmented reforms in England and Japan. As the comparative literature struggles to explain variation in ECEC expansion, this focus on ideas provides a significant contribution, highlighting why ECEC reform became supported by a broad cross-class coalition in Germany and Korea but not in England or Japan. The theoretical contribution argues that coalition magnets are formed when the polysemic potential of a policy is drawn out by key actors strategically linking it to several problem definitions, which can appeal to diverse political actors and forge lasting consensus for reform.
The chapter argues that a focus on cross-national explanations for change in family policies requires an examination not only of the political dynamics of ideational change but of the content of that change as well. The chapter addresses this gap, providing an overview of the politics of ideas in family policy, with a particular focus on variation in recent changes, based on a comparative study that includes welfare states in the Scandinavian countries, Continental Europe, the liberal countries, East Asia, and the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. It highlights how a relatively homogenous “old” politics of ideas has given way to a variety of “new” politics, which vary in terms of the extent and direction of policy change. On the basis of the findings, the authors conclude that a focus on the politics of ideas can help to understand cross-national differences in family policy reform.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.